Ex Parte TERADA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

13224452 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/224,452 09/02/2011
51921 7590 08/02/2018
MARK D. SARALINO (PAN)
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE
19THFLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Y oshihisa TERADA
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
OKUDP0616WOUS 9471
EXAMINER
CATINA, MICHAEL ANTHONY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ipdocket@rennerotto.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOSHIHISA TERADA
and KOJI MORIKAWA
Appeal2017-006102
Application 13/224,452
Technology Center 3700
Before: DEMETRA J. MILLS, ERIC B. GRIMES and JOHN G. NEW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MILLS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134. The Examiner has rejected
the claims for indefiniteness, obviousness, and as directed to patent ineligible
subject matter. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2017-006102
Application 13/224,452
NATURE OF INVENTION
The present invention is directed to an electroencephalogram
measurement (EEG) system which determines a state of attachment of the
electrodes which are utilized for electroencephalogram measurement. Spec.
STATEMENT OF CASE
We select claims 1, 3, 5, 8, and 14 as representative claims.
1. An electrode attachment state determination system
compnsmg:
an electroencephalogram measurement unit for
measuring an electroencephalogram signal of a user by using
at least one set of electrodes, the set including a ground
electrode, a reference electrode, and a measurement
electrode;
a frequency analysis unit for performing a frequency
analysis of the electroencephalogram signal;
an insufficient electrode determination unit for
extracting at least one parameter of a total frequency power
across all bands and at least one parameter of a noise amount
from a result of the frequency analysis, and through a
comparison of a value of the at least one noise parameter
against a predetermined noise threshold value and through a
comparison of a value of the at least one total frequency
power parameter against a predetermined total frequency
power threshold value, determining whether the ground
electrode, the reference electrode, or the measurement
electrode has an insufficient state of attachment; and
an output unit for, when an insufficient state of
attachment is determined, presenting information indicating
the insufficient state of attachment of the electrode to the
user.
App. Br., Claims App. 1.
3. The electrode attachment state determination system of claim 2,
wherein the insufficient electrode determination unit further extracts the total
2
Appeal2017-006102
Application 13/224,452
frequency power parameter from the result of the frequency analysis, and if
the total frequency power parameter has a value exceeding a predetermined
second threshold value as the total frequency power threshold value,
determines that one of the reference electrode and the measurement electrode
has an insufficient state of attachment.
5. The electrode attachment state determination system of claim 1,
wherein the electroencephalogram measurement unit measures a first
potential difference between the ground electrode and the reference electrode
and a second potential difference between the ground electrode and the
measurement electrode, and measures the electroencephalogram signal based
on a difference between the second potential difference and the first potential
difference.
8. The electrode attachment state determination system of claim 5,
wherein, as the total frequency power parameter, the insufficient electrode
determination unit extracts an average value of a power of the
electroencephalogram signal in an analyzable frequency band.
14. The electrode attachment state determination system of claim 1,
further comprising an electroencephalogram processing unit for
distinguishing an intent of the user by utilizing a characteristic component
contained in the measured electroencephalogram signal, and executing a
process which is in accordance with the intent of the user, wherein,
from a result of the frequency analysis, the insufficient electrode
determination unit extracts at least one parameter of a total frequency power
and a noise amount, and through a comparison of a value of the at least one
parameter against a predetermined threshold value, determines a state of
attachment of the ground electrode, the reference electrode, or the
measurement electrode to be sufficient or insufficient; and
if the state of attachment is determined to be insufficient, the output
unit presents information indicating the insufficient state of attachment of the
electrode to the user, and if the state of attachment is determined to be
sufficient, the output unit outputs a result of the process which is in
accordance with the intent of the user.
3
Appeal2017-006102
Application 13/224,452
Cited References
Strobl et al.
("Strobl")
Bibian et al.
("Bibian")
John et al.
("John")
Yasushi
("Y asushi")
Morikawa et al.
("Morikawa")
Grounds of Rejection1
U.S. 4,579,125
U.S. 8,538,512 Bl
Apr. 1, 1986
Sept. 17, 2013
U.S. 2006/0241562 Al Oct. 26, 2006
U.S. 5,495,853 Mar. 5, 1996
U.S. 2009/0247895 Al Oct. 1, 2009
1. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing
to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the inventor regards as the invention.
2. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of
nature, abstract idea).
3. Claims 1, 2, 15 and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Strobl in view of Bibian.
1 Claims 10-13 have been indicated by the Examiner to be allowable if
rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C.
§§ 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph and the 101 rejections. Non-Final Act. 11.
4
Appeal2017-006102
Application 13/224,452
4. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Strobl, Bibian, and John.
5. Claims 5-7 and 9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Strobl, Bibian and Yasushi.
6. Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Strobl, Bibian, Yasushi and John.
7. Claim 14 is rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Strobl, Bibian, and Morikawa.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Examiner's findings of fact are set forth in the Non-Final Action
at pages 2-11.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In making our determination, we apply the preponderance of the
evidence standard. See, e.g., Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427
(Fed. Cir. 1988) (Explaining the general evidentiary standard for
proceedings before the Office.).
"[The] combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."
KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Indefiniteness Rejection
The Examiner argues that the claim 1 language, "across all bands,"
"does not make clear what bands are being referred to specifically. It is
unclear if this means the standard EEG bands, the EEG signal as a whole
across the whole signal or something else." Non-Final 3.
5
Appeal2017-006102
Application 13/224,452
Appellants argue that
It should clear even from the current claim language that the
bands is a reference to the measured EEG signal that is measured by
the electroencephalogram measurement unit. To further prosecution,
however, Applicant is willing to amend independent claim 1 in
accordance with the Examiner's comments to recite "an insufficient
electrode determination unit for extracting at least one parameter of a
total frequency power across all bands of an EEG signal measured by
the electroencephalogram measurement unit."
App. Br. 7.
We find that Appellants have the better argument. Section 112(b)
requires the Specification to "conclude with one or more claims particularly
pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or
a joint inventor regards as the invention." As our reviewing court has
explained, section 112(b) requires the claims "to be cast in clear-as
opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite-terms." In re Packard, 751 F.3d
1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The rationale for requiring such "reasonable
precision" in claim language is because "[i]t is the claims that notify the
public of what is within the protections of the patent, and what is not." Id.
Accordingly, the language of the claims, when read in light of the
Specification, must allow skilled artisans to distinguish, as clearly as
possible, between activities which are covered by the claims, and activities
which fall outside the claims. See Miles Laboratories, Inc. v. Shandon Inc.,
997 F.2d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ("The test for definiteness is whether one
skilled in the art would understand the bounds of the claim when read in
light of the [S]pecification."). Thus, "[a] claim is indefinite if, when read in
light of the [S]pecification, it does not reasonably apprise those skilled in the
6
Appeal2017-006102
Application 13/224,452
art of the scope of the invention." Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel,
Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
According to the Specification,
As the total frequency power, "an average value of power in
the analyzable frequency band" was determined. More
specifically, 1 second of data was extracted from the measured
electroencephalogram, and this was subjected to a fast Fourier
transform (FFT) to determine a power value of each
frequency; and a total frequency power was calculated as an
average value of the power in a frequency band which is
greater than O but equal to or less than 100 Hz. The reason for
adopting "greater than O but equal to or less than 100 Hz" is
that, given the fact that electroencephalogram measurements
were taken with a sampling frequency of 200 Hz in this
experiment, the sampling theorem dictates that the available
frequency band is up to 100 Hz. The range of "greater than 0
but equal to or less than 100 Hz" is only exemplary. An
available frequency band may be determined, and an
electroencephalogram may be measured with a sampling
frequency that is twice as large as the maximum frequency
thereof.
Spec. ,r 91. We agree with Appellants that one of ordinary skill in the art of
conventional electroencephalogram technology, when read in light of the
present Specification, would understand the meaning of the claim language,
"a total frequency power across all bands" to include a defined range of
frequencies obtained from the EEG signal.
The claim indefiniteness rejection is reversed.
Lack of Patent Eligible Subject Matter
The Examiner finds that
7
Appeal2017-006102
Application 13/224,452
Claim( s) 1-16 is/ are directed to the abstract idea itself of calculating
the frequency spectrum and a noise determination comparing the
noise parameter to a threshold and then from that determining if a
ground, common or reference electrode has an insufficient state of
attachment. The claim( s) does/ do not include additional elements that
are sufficient to mount to significantly more than the judicial
exception because the additional sensors is/are merely for data input,
are well-known, routine, and conventional in the art, and are used in
extra-solution activity. As any additional elements in the claims do
not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the
claims when considered individually or as a whole do not amount to
more than the abstract idea itself. Furthermore, the subject matter's
ineligibility is confirmed by the machine-or-transformation test, under
which the claims are not tied to any specific machine and do not
transform the nature of the subject matter into something more than
the abstract mathematics behind it. At its core, the application is
seeking protection for the idea of correlating the frequency
determinations to electrode attachment.
Non-Final Act. 3.
We do not find that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
lack of patent eligible subject matter.
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title." 35 U.S.C. § 101. Supreme Court precedents,
however, provide three specific exceptions to the broad categories of 35
U.S.C. § 101: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Bilski
v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 601 (2010). "The 'abstract ideas' category
embodies []the longstanding rule that ' [ a ]n idea of itself is not patentable.'"
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (citing
Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)).
8
Appeal2017-006102
Application 13/224,452
In Alice, the Supreme Court referred to the two-step analysis set forth
in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66,
(2012), as providing "a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim
patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355
( citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 66). Under Mayo, "[ w ]e must first determine
whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." Id.
Next, "we consider the elements of each claim both individually and 'as an
ordered combination' to determine whether the additional elements
'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Id.
( citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78-80).
Under Mayo, to be patentable, a claim must do more than simply state
the law of nature or abstract idea and add the words "apply it." Mayo, 566
U.S. at 72; Benson, 409 U.S. at 67. For example, "the mere recitation of a
generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a
patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2358. "Thus, if a patent's
recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to 'implemen[t]' an
abstract idea 'on ... a computer,' that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility." Id. ( citation omitted).
In addition, the "notion that [ extra ]-solution activity, no matter how
conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle
into a patentable process exalts form over substance." Parker v. Flook, 437
U.S. 584, 590 (1978). See also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 80 ("Purely 'conventional
or obvious' '[pre ]-solution activity' is normally not sufficient to transform
an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a
law.").
9
Appeal2017-006102
Application 13/224,452
A challenged patent claim, properly construed, must incorporate
enough meaningful limitations to ensure that it claims more than just an
abstract idea and not just a mere "drafting effort designed to monopolize the
[abstract idea]." Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78).
"Simply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of
generality," is not "enough" for patent eligibility. Id. (quoting Mayo, 566
U.S. at 83).
On the other hand, in Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp, 822 F.3d 1327
(Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit determined that claims to a data storage
and retrieval system for a computer memory are not directed to an abstract
idea. Id. at 1336. The system at issue incorporated a self-referential logical
model, which allowed faster searching and more effective storage of data.
As an initial matter, the court declined to "read Alice to broadly hold that all
improvements in computer-related technology are inherently abstract and,
therefore, must be considered at step two." Id. at 1335. Analyzing the
claimed invention under the first step of the Alice inquiry, the court found
that the claims "are not directed to an abstract idea within the meaning of
Alice," but rather "to a specific improvement to the way computers operate,
embodied in the self-referential table." Id. at 1336.
Therefore, we first determine whether the claims at issue are directed
to a patent-ineligible concept. We do not find that the examiner has
established that the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. As
argued by Appellants,
In the claimed invention, therefore, the notification pertains to the
state of the device itself, and not to a natural phenomenon. As such,
the claimed invention has a technical effect of improving the
performance of the EEG analysis device -- outputting a notification to
10
Appeal2017-006102
Application 13/224,452
the user indicating a position and a type of electrode that has become
insufficient permits correction of electrode positioning ( which is done
by the user) to improve the performance of the EEG analysis device
itself. Without the invention, deficient data may be gathered unknown
to the user, yielding a poor EEG assessment.
App. Br. 8-9. Appellants further argue that
the Examiner ignores that the analysis is limited to a particular type of
signal that can only be measured with an electronic device: "an
electroencephalogram measurement unit for measuring an
electroencephalogram signal of a user by using at least one set of
electrodes, the set including a ground electrode, a reference electrode,
and a measurement electrode." Accordingly, the sensor system is a
particular system that measures a particular type of signal. In
addition, the frequency analysis is performed on this signal. Again, as
the type of signal at issue cannot be measured without a specific
electronic device, the invention does not perform the type of analysis
that can be done by hand or by mental exercise.
Reply Br. 3.
We find that the claimed electrode attachment state determination
system, which includes an electroencephalogram measurement unit for
measuring an electroencephalogram signal, using at least one set of
electrodes, (including a ground electrode, a reference electrode, and a
measurement electrode); a frequency analysis unit, an insufficient electrode
determination unit, and an output unit to indicate an insufficient state of
attachment of an electrode to the user, is directed to a patent eligible device
improvement. The improved operation of the EEG device uses both a noise
parameter and a total frequency power parameter to determine whether an
individual electrode is insufficiently attached in a multi-component EEG
11
Appeal2017-006102
Application 13/224,452
system. We do not find that the Examiner established with evidence2 that
use of both a noise parameter and a total frequency power parameter to
determine insufficient electrode attachment in a multi-component EEG
device/system, as claimed, is conventional. We conclude that the Examiner
has not established that the claims are directed to a patent ineligible abstract
idea.
The patent ineligible subject matter rejection is reversed.
Obviousness Rejection - Strobl and Bibian
The Examiner finds that Strobl teaches each element claimed, except
a ground electrode, which the Examiner finds is well known in the art. Non-
Final Act. 5. In addition, the Examiner finds that, "Strobl also does not
specifically disclose determin[ing] a noise amount compared to a threshold
to determine a loose lead just the frequency power determinations." Non-
Final Act 5. The Examiner therefore relies on Bibian as teaching "an EEG
measuring system that monitors noise ([C26 L54-65])." Id. The Examiner
concludes that, "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of invention to combine the device of Strobl with the
teachings of Bibian in order to collect a more accurate signal." Id.
Appellants contend that, in Strobl, "a processor converts the digitized
time domain waveforms into the frequency domain by Fast Fourier
Transform (FFT) for further analysis. Prior to the FFT, however, epochs of
the time domain signal containing artefacts are removed so as not to be part
2 Berkheimerv. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[w]hether
something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan
at the time of the patent is a factual determination.").
12
Appeal2017-006102
Application 13/224,452
of the spectral analysis, and the artefact epochs are not subjected to the FFT
or frequency analysis at all (Strobl at col. 7, lines 32-40[])." App. Br. 11.
Appellants further argue that
Strobl in particular describes that artefacts with significantly high
frequency components may be associated with artefacts caused by
muscle movement, and amplitude and frequency values may be
detected that typically are indicative of a loose lead. (See Strobl at
col. 7, line 23 to col. 8, line 44.) Strobl never links abnormalities in
the power spectrum with poor attachment of any of the electrodes.
App. Br. 11.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. In the EEG analyzer
of Strobl, a
[ d]igital computer 20 also checks the frequency spectra for
unusually high amplitudes at 60 Hz, which also indicate
loose lead artifacts. [3] Digital computer 20 rejects the
epochs which contain artifacts caused by loose leads, and
also provides a diagnostic message to the operator through
display 24 or printer 26, so that the loose lead can be
corrected.
Digital computer 20 averages the frequency spectra from a
number of artifact-free epochs over a predetermined update
period.
After the frequency spectra for each channel have been
averaged for the update period, digital computer 20
calculates an amplitude value for each frequency band for
each channel. This frequency band amplitude value is
produced by summing the amplitude values of each
3 "The computer converts the stored digital data from the time domain to the
frequency domain by means of a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithm.
The transformed data represents a frequency spectrum (i.e. amplitude or
power of the EEG signal as a function of frequency)." Strobl 1:60-65.
13
Appeal2017-006102
Application 13/224,452
frequency within the particular frequency band. The result
is a data, a theta, an alpha and a beta amplitude value for
each channel. Digital computer 20 then provides an output
through display 24 and/or printer 26 based upon the frequency band
amplitude values for the various channels.
Strobl 8:37---62; italicized emphasis added. Thus, Strobl describes
abnormalities in the power spectrum are associated with poor attachment of
the electrodes or loose electrode leads. Furthermore, consistent with the
Examiner's argument, we recognize that a grounding electrode is well
known in the EEG art. See, e.g., Yasushi 4:11-15.
Appellants further argue that
Bibian relates generally to the use of power spectrum
parameters in the analysis of brain dysfunction through EEG
monitoring. Bibian relates to power spectrum parameters as a
measure of brain function, not device function. Accordingly,
Bibian does not teach the recognized deficiencies of Strobl
because the combined references still do not teach any link
between abnormalities in the power spectrum with poor
electrode attachment.
App. Br. 11-12. We are not persuaded. Bibian discloses an EEG that
includes
SQ [signal quality] circuitry [that] monitors the front-end amplifiers in
order to detect eventual saturation that occurs when leads ... are
disconnected. This information, along with the digitized brainwave
signals, is relayed to the processing means 8-14 . ... The Signal
Quality Assessment Module 8 is used to check whether each signal
acquired by the system is of sufficient enough quality to be used in the
subsequent analysis. This is done by measuring continuously the
electrode impedance of each brainwave channel, and by quantifying
the levels of 50 and 60 Hz noise in the signal. High levels of 50 or 60
Hz indicate either a poor electro-magnetic environment, or a poor
connection to the patient which will result in a heightened sensitivity
14
Appeal2017-006102
Application 13/224,452
of the system for any other environmental noise (e.g., lead movement,
vibration, etc.). High levels of 50 or 60 Hz noise are usually
indicative of poor signal quality.
Bibian 26:49--65 (emphasis added). Thus, Bibian teaches an EEG
measuring system that monitors noise to determine if a signal acquired by
the EEG system is of sufficient enough quality to be used in the subsequent
analysis, and determines if the poor quality is associated with disconnected
leads. Non-Final Act. 5. Appellants have not provided sufficient rebuttal
argument to the Examiner's established prima facie case of obviousness.
On balance, the preponderance of the evidence supports the findings
of the Examiner, and the obviousness rejection over Strobl and Bibian is
affirmed.
Obviousness Rejection 4
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Strobl, Bibian, and John. Claims 3 and 4 share a
common feature in relating the total frequency power parameter to an
insufficient state of either the reference electrode or the measurement
electrode. App. Br. 14. Strobl describes abnormalities in the power
spectrum are associated with poor attachment of the electrodes or loose
electrode leads. Strobl 8:37---62. The Examiner finds,
[r]egarding claim 3, [that] Strobl discloses the system that
determines which electrode may have an attachment problem ([C8
L 16-44]) but does not specifically disclose determining it from total
frequency power. 5 62 [John] teaches [to] determine the total
frequency power from the calculated spectra ([i-f40]). In combination
with Strobl that teaches [to] determine an electrode attachment
problem when the frequency spectrum has unusually high amplitudes,
15
Appeal2017-006102
Application 13/224,452
in a total power calculation this would be evident as the total power
would be higher, the combined device determines if the total power is
over a threshold. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the device
of Strobl with the teachings of 562 [John] in order to better analyze
the frequency distribution.
Non-Final Act. 611.
Appellants argue with respect to rejection 4, that, "the reference in
John to calculating a total frequency power ... is a generalized reference.
John specifically does not relate the total frequency power to any artefacts in
the EEG signal." App. Br. 14.
We are not persuaded. John is directed to medical systems and
methods and more particularly, to an EEG based system for monitoring or
automatic guidance of anesthesia, analgesia, and amnesia during surgical
operations. ,r 2. In John, the "EEG system ... automatically checks the
electrode-skin impedance at each electrode at frequent intervals, ( e.g., every
minute), and displays a warning ( e.g., a red LED light) if any such
impedance falls below 5000 ohms." John ,r 28. In addition, using a Fast
Fourier Transform (FFT), the complex wave diagram of the EEG is divided
into underlying oscillation components, followed by a translation from the
time domain into the frequency domain. The squared amplitudes of these
oscillation components form the "power spectrum." ,r 40. John, paragraph
40, discloses that this FFT is the preferred method for calculating a power
spectrum of the patients' brain waves. John discloses that further processing
of the results may include the extraction of spectrum parameters and
statistical calculations, and that analysis of the relative phase variances at
each frequency may be conducted. FFTs of segments containing evoked
16
Appeal2017-006102
Application 13/224,452
potential signals and segments containing only noise samples are analyzed
and noise is removed by setting appropriate coefficients to zero and
reconstructing evoked potentials with the noise digitally removed. Id.
Parameters which may be derived from the power spectrum, include, for
example, the total power and absolute and relative power in different
frequency bands. Id. Data are subjected to automatic artifact removal. John
We find that the Examiner has provided evidence that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to
combine the device of Strobl ( which describes abnormalities in the power
spectrum are associated with poor attachment of the electrodes or loose
electrode leads), and Bibian, with the teachings of John (describing artifact
removal from EEG signals derived from the power spectrum, and checking
of electrode-skin impedance at each electrode at frequent intervals). John
describes the analysis of power spectrum signals in an EEG, and total power,
absolute and relative power in different frequency bands, and the removal of
noise from such data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
that noise could be removed from other forms of power spectrum data,
including Strobl's power spectrum data associated with poor attachment of
the electrodes or loose electrode leads.
Obviousness Rejections 5-7
Appellants do not otherwise argue the merits of obviousness
rejections 5-7 on this record, other than the previous arguments presented
for the combination of Strobl, Bibian, and John. App. Br. 14--16.
Arguments not made are waived. Obviousness rejections 5-7 are summarily
affirmed.
17
Appeal2017-006102
Application 13/224,452
DECISION
The cited references support the Examiner's obviousness rejections,
which are affirmed for the reasons of record. The lack of patent eligible
subject matter and claim indefiniteness rejections are reversed. Because the
claim indefiniteness and patent eligible subject matter rejections are
reversed, claims 10-13 are not subject to rejection.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l ). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
18